Category Archives: Scotland

"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." - George Orwell, 1984

Scottish parliament recently passed a bill that requires the state to appoint a "guardian" for every child in the country from birth until the age of 18. This sinister and disturbing practice would expand the role of the state in an unprecedented way, chipping away at parental rights and opening the door for massive government intrusion into family life.

The right of children to be raised by their parents--and the rights of parents to raise their children according to their values--is a basic human right. When parents responsibly rear their children, families stay strong, thus limiting the power of the state. A free society depends in part on strong marriages and families to bring up children in the most ideal setting.

A government "guardian" checking in on every child is tantamount to government surveillance of every family. These "guardians" will have access to family records and will be required to report on the child's development and welfare. They will also recommend household changes.

What if a government "guardian" disagrees with parents on how to best raise a child? Will the government official be able to override the parents' decisions about the child's healthcare, education, and home life? What if the government worker disagrees with parents' religious or political views, and thinks it's "unfair" or "bigoted" to raise a child in a religious environment?

If this bill and the threatening principles enshrined in it become law--which will happen unless pro-family activists stop it--it would open the door for state-sponsored surveillance on every family. It would enable the Scottish government to tell parents how to raise their children, place children's best interests and parental rights at odds with the interests of the increasingly powerful state.

Of course, there are occasionally unfit or abusive parents from whom children must be protected. But sound policy is not based on rare exceptions. In almost every case, children do best when raised by married parents in a stable relationship, and the government has no right to interfere with this.

I remember sitting with a co-worker in Washington State this time last year marveling, in a not so good way, that our nation is even having a debate about the nature of marriage. Marriage – the institution that crosses all cultural and historical boundaries – that has literally stood the ultimate test of time – and here we are in the western world thinking, “Maybe we should change it?” It’s crazy sad that we are even having the discussion.

But when we contemplate redefining marriage, we must also contemplate a whole host of consequences. And right now, the Kirk (church) of Scotland is having one of those sad crazy discussions as they consider whether they should stop celebrating wedding ceremonies at all – for straight or gays. The Kirk is deeply concerned that if the Scottish government redefines marriage they will have no choice but to stop performing them altogether.

Before you think this is just fear-mongering, remember that in England, a same-sex couple is already suing the Church of England because the church won’t marry them. Or as one of the men said, “I’m not getting what I want.” So I’ll sue Christians.

It is crazy sad that churches have to have these discussions. But when we redefine marriage there are a myriad of known and unknown consequences that we will have to deal with.

Frankly the only answer is to not redefine marriage in the first place.

Faith groups from around Scotland gathered at the Scottish Parliament yesterday to urge MSPs not to proceed with same-sex marriage legislation that would limit civil liberty and free speech:

Kieran Turner of the Evangelical Alliance said the Bill could drive a wedge between faith-based community projects and local councils.

He said there is a risk that local councils could sever links with organisations that hold to a traditional view of marriage.

John Deighan of the Scottish Roman Catholic Church said the essence of marriage is “that there is a man and a woman at the heart of it, and that is the relationship which gives rise to children”.

Writing in The Scotsman, he also said: “The institution of marriage pre-exists and pre-dates the state ... For the sake of the common good, I urge our parliamentarians not to proceed with this legislation”.

In written evidence to the committee the Evangelical Alliance said it was “disappointed” the Government had made “little substantive effort” to protect freedom of speech or conscience.

John Mason MSP, who is a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, warned ahead of a recent pro-traditional marriage rally that safeguards are needed for those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Committee are holding double evidence sessions at earlier start times, in a move seen by critics as pushing the legislation through “in haste”. -Christian Institute

Think the Scottish Parliament may have heard about Scotland for Marriage's 50,000-strong petition to protect the definition of marriage as husband and wife? A bill to redefine marriage is suddenly being “fast-tracked” through the legislature.

According to the Herald newspaper, MSPs will hold double evidence sessions on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill, with early start times.

A critic of the plans warned that law made “in haste” does not provide good legislation.

...John Deighan, parliamentary officer for the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, cautioned: “You can only see this as undue haste.

“It looks like a bandwagon that no-one has been minded to take in the right direction.

“They ought to remember that if you make law in haste you do not get the best legislation.” -Christian Institute

Scotland for Marriage has gathered more than 50,000 signatures for their petition in support of retaining the current definition of marriage between one man and one woman. According to the group, that's more supporters than the combined paid membership of all the main political parties in Scotland.

The 50,000th signatory is 20-year-old Iain Donoghue, a third-year student from Falkirk.

He said: “I feel that it is entirely unnecessary to change the existing law. Marriage is between one man and one woman to the exclusion of others with a view to the procreation of children.”

He added: “The opinion polls are very clear on the issue and show widespread support for the existing law and suggest that two-thirds of people are in favour of maintaining the status quo.”

A Scotland for Marriage spokesman said the group intends to put pressure on politicians about the plans. -Christian Institute